Shulamith Firestone

If you weren't a massive newfag, you'd know that there is a small group of pedo posters who, upon a new board being made, consistently make threads and derail threads with their pedo shit, they did it to Zig Forums back in 14-15 and did it to Zig Forums too upon it's inception, and they will come and derail threads like these with their pedoshit. Maybe you should pick better quotes instead of insulting people on the internet, you cunt.

Feminism is for dumb people who can't into socialism.

Wasn't he 100% bonkers though? He thought he could direct orgasm energy to move clouds and cure cancer.

Zig Forums before GG had a majority pedo userbase, like most small chans. They mostly left since the datamining started.

Haven't read her but radical feminism is trash tbh. Better stick to what Kollontai, Zetkin, Luxemburg, and others have said about that question.

Even though I'm pretty sure this is/might turn into a pedo thread, there is a current of Marxist "Feminism" (you don't have to call it that if you'd prefer not to) which is well worth paying attention to, it's not at all related to Liberal or Intersectional Feminism and isn't a cohesive movement, more a collection of works on Social Reproduction Theory which span decades. One of said considered works is mentioned in this thread actually. With this particularly author though, as a couple of other posters have pointed out, you should be much more concerned about Freud & Reich as influences than Feminism.

There have been a bunch of pedo threads just this year on Zig Forums though, so I don't think they've all gone, idk if the rule about pedoshit is still enforced on this board though?

nah I don't want to catch HIV. but thanks anyways. you can keep the gayness in your anus, paco.

Based J. Barg

what's wrong with freud tho? you're not allowed to say it isn't scientific because it's unfalsifiable

Attached: zizek is uncomfortable.jpg (720x960, 63.78K)

Doesn't fucking /younglove/ and /loli/ still exist?

Freud was fucking gay, also his mustahce sucked. Fuck him.

That paragraph reads like someone who read the wikipedia article of Freud tried to namedrop as many of his ideas as fast as possible.

the height of pedophilia in 8ch was also during the height of GG user

I agree 99% of it is shit but I find Firestone to be an exception. She is heavily influenced by Marxism and her main work is called The Dialectic of Sex.

Freud and Reich are based. You're a brainlet.

At which point did I say that I thought either Freud or Reich are shit? Kill yourself faggot

don't be a dick.

Explain how I'm being a dick when that user started off replying to me with an Insult unprovoked?

...

Yeah I keep hearing that stuff from Freudians, but really I have a hard time accepting it as accurate.
There's definitely a class of dudes who feel that way (the kind of guy who really can't sleep with a woman after they had sex with her) but it seems to me there are just as many who are not affected in this way.

a solution for a problem only she perceives and expects everyone else to change their way to "fix it"

Ps: I just read the green text, its even crazier then i expected

Only late Reich is bonkers, him at Norway is kinda but not there yet. You can completely disregard his work during the US, it was there that he went full on the orgone shit.
I strongly recommend his early work such as character analysis and mass psychology of fascism.

fwiw she basically renounced most of her writing and involvement in feminism later in life, and spent the last two decades as basically a shut-in. it's a really sad story.

more like excepted from that roasty feminist

Attached: 1525825839310.jpg (400x400, 17.88K)

Literally absolute madman-tier and sorta based.

Not very surprising she was certified hatstand

Idpol go home

Remove pedo

Lol. We already have a low level incel crisis which is contributing to reactionary politics and a large chunk of men who won't ever marry and have kids inn sexually liberal socdem states, resulting from female hypergamy further enabled by the state, the pill , sexual liberation and a post industrial economy. Feminists like OP are just asking for an incel rebellion. The left needs to contend with the hypergamy question before they start experimenting with more radical non tradmonogamous unions and family structures. Giving women more sexual and economic agency will only make the yardstick that much higher for men.

ultrajewess with daddy issues
lmao

Isn't this common for most radfems though? I.E they personally experienced a lot of the worst aspects of Patriarchy that then inspired them to write their works, whether that clouds their judgment & analysis is arguable, but I definitely don't think you can discount them based on this; lest you also do the same to the formative experiences of all other theorists rather than engaging with their work and critiquing/refuting it, although I'd argue in this instance Firestone invites it upon herself by being so heavily influenced by psychoanalysis

This is nonsense. People are having more sex than ever before. Incels are not a result of female "hypergamy," they are a result of the alienating potential of social life under capitalism. That is the issue that needs to be addressed. I agree that it is more pressing than further female sexual liberation.

yes but obviously not the incels.
what do you mean by that?You think there would be no incels in a communist society?

So commie women are pedophiles too.

Incels are not having sex because they are incapable of maintaining a social life, largely due to (what under the capitalist system manifests itself as) mental health problems. People who do have an active social life get plenty of sex.

The real problem of incels is that they are lonely. They crave meaningful human interaction. Incapable of conceiving of human interaction in any other terms, this loneliness is then misinterpreted as an inability to get sex. Any other interaction isn't considered possible because they've internalized an image of themselves as social outcasts. There's no option but to use the purely physical act of sex as a stand-in for this desire. If they were to actually engage in sexual activity this would only break the illusion, and likely lead into a mental breakdown. Not that they would actually go through with it.

I know this because I have many of these feelings myself, I'm just self-aware enough to recognize what's going on.

latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-millennials-less-sex-20160802-snap-story.html

Nope, studies have shown that millennial are having less sex than even those of the greatest generation. Interestingly, they didnt breakdown the numbers by gender which is suspicious. It is consistent to what fem Marxist psychologist and researcher Angela Nagle has been saying with the rise of reactionary politics among young men.

standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/sex-incels-a3860271.html

One of the few comprehensive studies on this issue on a nation basis have shown that lower status men and unattractive in nordic countries like Norway are least likely to have children, and considering many pregnancies in these countries tend to be as a result of unprotected sex and casual relationships as the researcher noted, as the institution of marriage is seen as outdated in these welfare feminist states , you can infer that these men are also have the least amount of sex of any demographic .

sciencenordic.com/quarter-norwegian-men-never-father-children
But hey, you guys can continue to pretend this isnt an issue and create your own reality to suit your narrative, whilst reactionaries like Jordan Peterson are further empowered by this phenomena.

Incel idpol should be banned

I kind of like the nuclear family. It seems to have worked so far and I don't see how its fundamentally oppressive.

Are you new? Or just shitposting? There are materialist discussions that can be had about both issues (which is why there is a long canon of the topic of gender within marxism, particularly under the classification of Social Reproduction theory) but the problem is that the vast majority of gender idpol that gets posted here is thorougly retarded and often pushed by intellectually dishonest retards, because instead of having an actual discussion about things we get retards like you who just spout liberal & reactionary memes. Let's be honest, you don't want to actually find solutions to the issue you just want to shit your pants and reeeee everywhere just like the Reddit & Tumblr faggots.

The same theories that are constantly disproven by studies that shows that the social constructionism has limits and cant explain all gendered behaviors pertaining to sexual reproduction, gender roles and attraction? But hey, we are supposed to trust that a few intellectuals got it right when it came to sexuality and family structures when there has hardly ever been a successful implementation of those family models, as typified by the failure of the radical Isreali Kibbutz experiments.

heretical.com/wilson/rkibbutz.html

anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1525/ae.1981.8.1.02a00260

Millennials do have less sex than previous generation. This is a result of a new kind of unspoken prudishness, and it does worry me. Nevertheless, it is separate from the phenomenon of Inceldom.

I'm not claiming that there aren't demographics of men that aren't having sex, just offering a different explanation than "women are sluts who always go for the chad." That's bullshit and you're a retard if you believe it. The reality is that young men are lacking in personal purpose, and increasingly withdrawn from social life. That's what's causing them to have less sex and eventually sink down into inceldom.

latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-millennials-less-sex-20160802-snap-story.html

Nope, studies have shown that millennial are having less sex than even those of the greatest generation. Interestingly enough, they didnt breakdown the numbers by gender which is suspicious. It is consistent with what fem Marxist psychologist and researcher Angela Nagle has been saying with the rise of reactionary politics among young men.

standard.co.uk/lifestyle/esmagazine/sex-incels-a3860271.html

One of the few comprehensive studies on this issue at a national basis have shown that below average/unattractive/average men in nordic countries like Norway are least likely to have children, and considering many pregnancies in these countries tend to be as a result of unprotected sex and casual relationships, as the institution of marriage is seen as outdated in these welfare feminist states as the reasercher noted, and women dont get financially penalized as much for having out of wedlock children, you can infer that these men are also have the least amount of sex of any demographic .

sciencenordic.com/quarter-norwegian-men-never-father-children

But hey, you guys can continue to pretend this isnt an issue and create your own reality to suit your narrative, whilst reactionaries like Jordan Peterson are further empowered by this phenomena.

Look I know you're not actually interested in anything productive considering you're the guy who has been shitposting inanely under the Mautist flag the past couple of days and are probably a Swedish Socdem Incel alt but where did I state that Constructionism is the only possible avenue of enquiry?

meant for

He keeps rewriting his post to include more redditspacing.

read the study. As the institution of marriage breaks down and the financial penalty for out of wedlock children decreases for women, and women can raise children by themselves, many women will trade longterm monogamy with loyal hardworking below average men or men on their level, with casual/defacto relationships with men above their level. These men tend to be recycled by other women. So my attractive high status uncle will have two ex wives and children from previous relationships whilst my other uncle, the average looking lower status John will have lesser chances for marriage and relationships, and will likely die alone. Thats happening in many parts of the west. So micro changes in dating behavior and marriage could have macro level consequences for men.

Maybe Ive got it all mixed up with my theories , but rarely do feminist radical family reformers have shown their alternative family models work without major consequences for men. -Perhaps rad fems should create a Kibbitz type community to experiment with all their alt family/sexual theories, before they implement drastic reforms on society and treat us like a guinea pig.

read the study. As the institution of marriage breaks down and the financial penalty for out of wedlock children decreases for women, and women can raise children by themselves, many women will trade longterm monogamy with loyal hardworking below average men or men on their level, with casual/defacto relationships with men above their level. These men tend to be recycled by other women. So for example, my attractive high status uncle will have two ex wives and children from previous relationships whilst my other uncle, the average looking lower status John will have lesser chances for marriage and relationships, and will likely die alone. And this happens across all society, so this all adds up. Thats happening in many parts of the west. So micro changes in dating behavior and marriage could have macro level consequences for men.

Imo the transition from extended family to nuclear family has been an essential component of the alienation of the working class.

Show me a man who goes far in this world, and I'll most likely show you someone with a strong extended family supporting him with a network of relation and cultural capital.

You're the one interpreting these men as being "average" or "above their level." There is no natural hierarchy here. Attractiveness depends upon social context, especially when it comes to men. Confident men with a lot going on in their lives are infinitely more attractive than others. The reason we now have a large demographic of men not "attractive" enough to get laid is that they're alienated from capitalism. It is this alienation that makes them both unhappy, unlikely to have social contacts, and undesirable to women.
Further, your interpretation makes a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions. You can explain the statistics in a large number of different ways. Maybe women are more interested in having children. Maybe some men tend to use condoms while other men don't. The same numbers can be explained using such hypotheses. Even then, I'm not denying that there is truth to your narrative. As things stand, some men simply are "unattractive" and unable to find women to have sex with, but this demographic will radically decrease if we get rid of capitalism.
We aren't going to force women into monogamy. Forget it.

Read.Lenin.

that's a lie, confidence matters very little for attracting women : ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19558447
Besides, confidence comes from constant positive social feedback, not the other way around.

Is it possible to make a filter that forces you to quote the "Origin of Family" every time you attempt to make a post with the word "hypergamy"?

Lol, feminists are in for a rude awakening.

*Males are so stupid they will work for a system obviously rigged against their interests without violent coercion.

Lol this, leftists are going to get ran through by fascists because they're so spooked by feminism that they can't understand what people who worshiped obvious charlatans that turned water into wine understood 2000 years ago. You can't have a stable society if the majority of your men aren't getting laid.
When the bourgeois start funding Nazis in earnest like they are in Ukraine the salt from women crying from getting REKT by Nazi persecution because none of the betas they cucked came to their aid, will be deliciously ironic.

the extended family had many drawbacks, namely that it was only kept together by a strict Patriarch or overseer, who undermined the freedoms and individualism of family members.

That is exactly what Firestone recommends in OP's greentext ffs.

This.

Yeah, people aren't having that feedback anymore. Their lives are meaningless and hollow and they fail to communicate with one another. This is turning men unattractive. If we turn it around, men will be more attractive again.
Maybe the opposite effect is also at play, female insecurity drawing them to more physically attractive partners with higher social standing as a way to validate themselves. Under socialism, this effect would be decreased as well.

Speed dating isn't an accurate representation of what people are attracted to. You hardly have enough time to judge people on anything other than looks.

We also have to ask what kind of people sign up for an event like that. I'd expect men who have the courage to do so already have above-average confidence.

It is an accurate representation of what socialization under capitalism looks like. Most people don't have much more than a few hours to meet each other and potentially start a relationship.
I don't know where you live, but it's not like many people get to live a communal life and form meaningful bonds with coworkers and neighbours.

You have Utopian views of socialism . Socialism isnt going to fix everything whats wrong with human nature. And there are plenty of men who are hollow and their lives lack meaning who are successful with women(heck look at soulless autistic investment bankers or your local braindead Chad), whilst there are plenty of poor men who have rich lives, but who cant attract women. You seem to do your best to deny the reality that women are just as shallow as men, and no less noble. According to many studies, women accross all cultures, whether in capitalist America or Nomadic tribes liek the Woddaabe of Niger are attracted to status or physical attributes of potential mates which tend to alienate a large chunk of men. Denying the role of mate selection is like denying gravity. Heck we didnt have capitalism for most of human history, and Humans lived in egalitarian hunterer gatherer societies for hundreds of thousands of years, and yet partly because women are selective of their mates, only 40 percent of men passsed on their genes, compared to 80-90 percent of women. Stop putting women on a pedestal.

And I'm sure you have a solution which is totally dialectic and not some idealist bullshit like "we should socially engineer women to become demure housewives again".

this is what I fear. People in this thread keep calling me an incel for a raising a relevant issue which is turning many men reactionary, because it goes against their world view, but Im convinced this will affect politics for the next generation. Im only saying what many like Angela Nagle are saying, who simply want to confront this issue before it hits critical mass, and not because we want women to return to the kitchen. Our enemies will use this issue to mobilize men against the left, as the left has become joined to the hip with retarded divisive feminists, which will in the end benefit the bourgeoisie. I mean for god sake, I see Jordan peterson reactionary bullshit book all over my university, so this issue is more widespread that those on this forum would want to believe.

So the mods should tell their rabbis to fuck off?

Attached: gnome.png (1600x900, 140.71K)

Well first off talking about solutions shouldn't prevent us from diagnosing an issue.
And I believe, like Firestone, that technology might indeed offer solutions, possibly by completely decoupling romantic relationships from reproduction.
But more importantly we have to finish the sexual revolution. As it is today, the media are still pushing men and women to only seek conventionally beautiful partners. The sexual hierarchy itself has to go, and I believe it is feasible through cultural changes.

I dont pretend to have a solution, but I believe censoring, dismissing or publicly shaming anyone who raises this emerging issue is not the right course of action, which is unfortunately what the social liberals and feminists within the left and Libs are doing. I believe having an open debate and dialogue without self censorship is what we need. Or else reactionaries like Jordan Peterson, who want that to be the case, will have a monopoly on the discussion of this issue

I dont pretend to have a solution, but I believe censoring, dismissing or publicly shaming anyone who raises this emerging issue is not the right course of action, which is unfortunately what the social liberals and feminists within the left and Libs are doing. I believe having an open debate and dialogue without self censorship is what we need. Or else right wing reactionaries like Jordan Peterson, who want that to be the case, will have a monopoly on the discussion of this issue as it affects more men in the coming decades, and as trad monogamy disintegrates due to social, technological and economic forces.

Lol incel truth bomb got banned.

They can't do that, because feminists are MORE genetic deterministic then men. You ain't going to find a large group of women willing to raise other people's children unless they have their own material incentive like being barren, or getting gimmedats from the state.
But feminists see men as disposable so its good for men to be cucked.

Not him but, this boils down to reform or revolution. What sense is there in policing the bourgeois institutions of their class rule? Of course it will improve the particular issue of people that they have with the superstructure getting in their way, but such political action has absolutely no effect on the economic base of capitalism. There can be no economic independence for single mothers unless they get to earn significantly more than now, or that their life necessities would become more affordable.

The capitalist economical base created these issues in the first place. What do you propose, Ikonoclasm? Sure it is easy for a lonely person to adjust their attitudes about others, learn to see the beauty in everyone and generally adjust their internal state, but if others are getting by with their as you say conventional opinions, nothing prompts them to change.

These slight adjustments are an uphill battle in capitalism, and only socialism would offer proper information channels to enact those policy changes that you propose, since socialism would not be subject to the laws of the capital.
At best they should serve as a learning lesson of political struggle, but those are not the end of things. So in the end who would be the arbiter? Why complicate things with myriad of micro-struggles when there is a huge yoke of capitalism weighing down on our collective shoulders.

In fact socialism in eastern bloc turned out to be far more progressive than capitalist countries. Since their start in the 1950's, they enacted laws that made man and woman de facto equal partners with equal rights in marriage. Something like that was done in late 1970's in western germany for example. Woman's job contract or bank contract required a husband's signature. So that is why I argue that socialism allows these changes you and many like you would like to see to be actually implemented.

...

Also to add, socialism in eastern bloc held itself to a standard of scientific inquiry. They did not see scientific socialism as an empty phrase, it was a practice. This implies that theories of bourgeois feminism would be torn to shreds, as well as any remnants of idealist philosophy. After all the main policy is to improve lives of all people, of the working class.

Systems of daycare of even services that offered help with household work were established. The socialism held itself as a progressive regime and sought to uphold women from theif former subjugated state under capitalism. Of course due to obvious reasons that led to fall of socialism in the eastern bloc, which were a gradual process, had its implication on these policies, incentives as such.

espressostalinist.com/the-real-stalin-series/soviet-society/

The link shows a collection of insights, where the socialists in soviet union were trying to actually bring about a more fair world for every working class person, to make their lives easier. After all they had the proper way to exercise their power, the dictatorship of the proletariat.

telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6373531/Womens-love-lives-were-better-in-East-Germany-before-the-Berlin-Wall-fell.html

So the conclusion is following, no sense in trying to police the bourgeois institutions. And when proletarian begins to rule, these unproductive "progressive" ideologues of capitalism will have no choice but to discover their true humanity and not be a mere tools of undead amassed labour and wealth known as capital.

When these shills experience unalienated labour and feel for the first time what it meanst to be proud of your work, their opinions will change according to their direct experience. A person holds a shovel with their hands and sends signals to muscles from their brain.

Disclaimer: I am grateful for the brief moments of unalienated labour that I ever did in my life. It is a great therapy for my poor mental health.

Why was this post deleted?
The dog whistles of "decouple" and "cultural change" were too obvious but the benefit of doubt was given.

THe situation in the Soviet Union cant be compared to the west since there was always a historic male shortage, since men disproportionately died in War and in the fields. Women were the ones who became femcels and FAs in the Soviet unioin due to the shortage of men. In a post industrial society where male labour is no longer needed as a result of automation, gender politics would be different. The Pill also changed things. Traditionalism also made a come back after the rise of Stalin. The west, was undoubtedly more socially liberal during the 60s, 70s and 80s.

pardon my cluelessness, but how is "decouple" a dog whistle?

It is well known that Stalinism halted this progress. But this progress as such needs to be tied to the material base.

The West was socially liberal for a reason. The 1970's had their Oil Crisis. Also the capitalists found out ways to extract more surplus, to prompt consumerism, the neoliberalism. The 1970's in Eastern bloc were relatively conservative, but still focusing on improving the well being of people. New apartment blocs were constructed en masse (commie blocs), loans to newlyweds, all sort of policies to encourage people to start families.

In post industrial society, the working class is pacified and corrupted by handing them spoils of the imperialist extraction of wealth. I doubt that any reasonable person would assume that this is fair and focus on the gender politics in the environment, where the subjugation of women is offloaded on the third world women. And men as well.

All talk about feminism is good as long as there are guns pointed at dark people, or less brown people with slanted eyes.

Also worth comparing how homosexuality was viewed in Britain and in USSR between world wars. There were femcels in britain too, yet homosexuality was criminalized, correction only male one. SInce the inbred aristocratic ruling class in britain knew better than to mistreat the working class women whose husbands-to-be were thrown into the meat grinder only for the capitalism dividing the world into markets and spheres of influence when they managed to merely bump into each other.

dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-481882/Condemned-virgins-The-million-women-robbed-war.html

Maybe it is not, but one of Mexie's videos shows how some economic institute made a study and conclusion was that environmental externalities need to be decoupled. English is my second language, so that also implied a policy doomed to fail since it was disconnected from the material base.

Hunter and gatherer groups of primitive communism had even decoupled understanding of sex and reproduction as such. Since they did not observe the full life cycle of animals, like the first sheep herders of primitive agriculture did. The Comic Book of History makes an allusion to this, saying discovery that sex leads to having babies started the civilization and private property. But who read Engels Origin of Family knows that excess of production of herding animals and growing crops lead to wealth concentration due to the randomness of the markets, as econophysics show.

My vision of socialism is that it will (1.) give people the freedom to pursue labor that is meaningful to them, (2.) enable more communal modes of living, and (3.) get people who feel unhappy about their life proper counseling to figure things out. That's plenty to change the sexual dynamics of present society.

Lol nobody is suggesting that and it wouldn't appeal to me at all honestly, most are actually just rightfully frustrated about the double standards for males concerning their "traditional" gender roles from feminism and society as a whole. Any MGTOW could tell you why trad monogamy was still kind of shit for men as well in many ways(having to wage slave away for some house wife who gets to live the good life for one) and that the gynocentric bullshit we deal with didn't even come from feminism. As for solutions though, I don't have any, the current gender/sexual dynamics are going to end up biting roasties in the ass some time soon down the line and thats good enough for me. Really I just despise people at this point and am looking forward to the demise of the species at the hands of climate change and the acceleration of techno capital.

Attached: 2bdf091099aaae0d4a189c5785f536aa32f94a0fe749c39549d7036716b9f190.png (1024x576 522.58 KB, 43.85K)

Zig Forums was right again.

So this thread has a lot to unpack, but let me get this out of the way so my biases are visible and thus my points are more understandable:
This is some retarded shit. This is the type of vulgar anarchist thinking most people think of when they think of the word anarchy, the type of dumb ass Randian "for all I know all other people don't exist" mentality. Let me me digest this shit slowly so I don't vomit:

>The socialist-feminist revolution will free both women and children, leaving them with complete economic independence and sexual freedom, and integrating them fully into the larger world.
To say a child can consent to have sex with adults is like saying one can consent to slavery or that capitalism is voluntary. If you don't have agency, you can't consent. A child lacks the experience, the wit, the strength and the working capacity to have agency. Even if materially, the child has everything, they don't have the social skills and the experience necessary to tell that they are being manipulated/lied to. They don't have a network of capable people to get notice that their behavior is different due to maltreatment, giving that A)they haven't been alive for long and B)kids and teenagers aren't well known for being emotionally stable.

Yeah, because only women with children experience abuse. Did this lady ever go outside?

So orphans can't abuse their partners. I think my question above was answered.

I guess "The problem is the nuclear family, let's go back to communal living" was not attention grabby and wordy to sell a book.

Probably because it is.

Attached: Totally what it is.png (2500x1933, 7.89M)

Shut the fuck up retard

calm the fuck down lol

I'm pretty calm, I'm just not going to act as if dumb shit like this even merits discussion.

DEsTrOyD WitHT FacTs And L0gic!!!!1eleven!

youtube.com/watch?v=95i2dMoTKbQ This might be the most straight forward one that talks about the subject, this guy has a lot of videos similar topics though

Attached: Lupusregnia.jpg (375x346, 42.48K)

to all of u in this thread:

stop being incels and hating women thank u
ur all idiots

if women are "just as shallow as men", there is no way we could have developed the idea that they were. The actual sham is the idea that moral power exists at all, leaving the minority of men who rise up against the bars the've convinced themselves they have around them, the minority of women who benefit more from the illusion of moral power more than womanly responsibilities are to their detriment, the smaller minority of men who actively hold up the system of moral power, the majority of people who passively adhere to moral power through words and trivial actions, and the majority of women who do not benefit from the illusion.

Why is it always a jew(ess) with daddy issues?

But are you going to force men?

I'm convinced you're one of those anti social women with no female friends. If you really think women don't place men in sexual hierarchies ,then you've never had female friends over the age of 14. Get outside more, sunshine, and then maybe you'd know how wrong you really are.

Or perhaps a lesbian who doesn't understand male female interaction