Comments by "Warren Cash" (@mandowarrior123) on "No Nut November is Literally Fascism" video.

  1. 25
  2. 12
  3. 9
  4. 6
  5. I'm not sure, the 'sexual liberation' movement to some degree simply made many women lazy and entitled. It used to be their duty to please their man, now it is your obligation to please them. I can't imagine it being normal that the real thing is inferior to porn for you. I feel like you must have been really treading uphill. In the most catholic era in british history deep in the middle ages it was grounds for annulment if the woman was not being satisfied by her husband at least once a week, it was considered necessary and healthy for women's cycles right through the victorian period where doctors would bring special devices for women to relieve their hysteria, or orgasm in other words. Sure, you're probably watching too much, and doing it alone, whereas women likely should be more engaged in it and it should be something you do together, not alone. Sex is not sexual intimacy, it is no replacement for it, but it is a basic human need. I blame 'babyphobia' to a large degree- women being made to fear sex and pregnancy that we encouraged in the past. I know it sounds funny but even a basic exploration into the past will show sexual repression has INCREASED with so called 'liberation.' There's less sex now than ever. Is porn the cause? Absolutely not. Was porn hard to get in the past? Absolutely not! Remember page 3 of the sun? Remember peep shows? Remember the karma sutra? Remember pompeii? In the medieval period if a woman complained her husband wasn't performing in bed they would get a bunch of women in to 'help' and watch and give tips, and witness if he really couldn't. We have become as backwards as the middle east nowadays, except they will have their way with lesser slave peoples no problem- What exactly is this normal that you assume that people had? The 1940's had a hell of a lot more than pin ups i can promise you that. The casting couch was 1924, video pornography is nearly as old as video. Possibly much older if you count animation in flip books. You certainly shouldn't expect a lady to match the experience of a porn star, but do bear in mind that what is displayed doesn't actually usually feel that good, and showing her what feels good and reacting for her will make you both feel better. There's no reason she can't learn to make you feel good and vice versa. If she's unwilling, that's sadly too common. If you find her unattractive especially mentally it can be difficult to sustain sexual intimacy unless you are particularly driven by something else she is willing to indulge for you. My point is, for some guys porn stops them wanting a relationship, for you, you clearly crave one. It'd be better to talk privately if you'd like but I think you might have a sexual hangup issue that is causing the real thing to not work great for you, and you are resenting that, not your partners. Let me know your thoughts and feelings. Do you watch very extreme pornography?
    5
  6.  @cosmicprison9819  climate denial? Rather ignorant of the situation in climatology. I can cover it all if you'd like, but I can pretty much guarantee everything you've read about it in the news or from politicians is objectively false. '97% of climate scientists agree' in al gore's speech? From a paper that analysed other published papers and found 4% supported climate change and 3% did not. It failed peer review when the papers of the 4% wrote and complained their papers did no such thing. 3 degrees and 30M sea level rise? The predicted from our warming period based before humans existed. Just to mention a couple of the pop news tidbits you often see. Does this mean humans aren't affecting the climate? Heck no, we probably are- the issue comes down to the highly variable data and large timespan. It is incredibly difficult to predict on a 120,000 year cycle based on a data set starting 70 years ago. We're still cold compared to predicted natural warming, hence the early ice age/cooling theories (much worse than heating) One thing we do know is CO2 does not in fact cause increased temperatures, rather we have strong evidence to suggest temperatures cause co2 change instead, a one way relationship. Previously, however, these are tied together- in fact you can read temperature based on co2 frozen in ice. Since the start of mass CO2 output that metric will no longer be valid. We also have no idea what such a large change will do- it could nucleate clouds and cause an ice age much faster and worse than ever, or stave it off due to the greenhouse effect, or perhaps nothing at all. There's plenty enough nasty pollutants in coal, petrol and so on to want to be rid of them, absolutely. And it is a simple matter to build a large number of nuclear reactors instead. But its funny how the activist organisations don't seem to be happy with that solution, instead demanding climate socialism.
    4
  7. 3
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1