All of his women characters were either promiscuous or had abortions. Was Faulkner a misogynist?

"I'am free!" says the slave.

>No i just act entirely on base urges like a nigger

you do you bro

The irony.

Attached: st_augustine_quote.jpg (500x300, 52K)

Marriage is the cornerstone of civilization. So yeah, all women turning into sluts is dangerous.

You avoid pain and seek pleasure, the nigger and you are one.

Because I take offense to an irrational double standard? What is it about me arguing about men getting a free pass that suggests I seek pleasure? Who doesn't try to avoid pain? Why are you outside of your containment board??

>{SEEK PLEASURE}

Attached: low quality NPC.jpg (206x245, 7K)

Promiscuity is bad either way.

You make the assumption that men and women are the same and have the same roles in civilization. They aren't and they don't.

no, beer is lmao.

And it takes two to tango. Men sleeping about is a-okay but women doing it is cataclysmic? What?

>muh lobster hierarchy!

When did I imply otherwise?

Attached: IMG_4379-e1481839630755-1068x600.jpg (1068x600, 96K)

>muh lobster hierarchy!
???

>Because it means less to women, Father said. He said it was men invented virginity not women. Father said it's like death: only a state in which the others are left and I said, But to believe it doesn't matter and he said, That's what's so sad about anything: not only virginity
Imagine your incel son killing himself because you took a fat nihilistic dab all over the dead southern aristocracy

Men don't birth children, women do. Men don't have a biological clock for breeding, woman do. Men are not meant to actively take care of their offspring, women are. So yeah, women being promiscuous is more dangerous than men being promiscuous.

>men aren't meant to help raise children
>children without fathers are more likely to be antisocial criminals
Gotta love shitty ecology

You fucking idiot all of these are arguments for why women need to be more promiscous

What does birth have to do with fooling around before you settle down?

These people are hacks that use pop biology to rationalize their inability to get pussy. Why you're wasting your time arguing with them i dont know

Your original premise implied the norm was desirable. Promiscuity was a shameful affair among both sexes until fairly recent history (past 60 years or so).

>Your original premise implied the norm was desirable.

uh no chief

I said *actively* take care. Not "not take care at all." There's a difference. Women feed their babies with their own body, etc.

Based no-nonsense poster

Because having 2 kids with Brandon, 1 with Tyrone, and 3 with Pedro is the cornerstone of civilization, right? Fuck marriage.

>Civilization can only work with traditional nuclear families because muh bible told me so!

alright

All great writers were misogynists.

>These people are hacks that use pop biology to rationalize their inability to get pussy
That's not even the topic, retard. Quite the opposite, it's about people being promiscuous. Stay in school, kids.

Literally never mentioned The Bible. Nice straw man.

You mock the inverse:
>but a slutty woman is the death of civilization lmao
Which means, you reject that promiscuity is harmful. You sought parity of the sexes to continue in their debauchery instead of analyzing cause and effect of these mores. I'm sorry to say it, but you are low IQ.

let me guess have nothing to back up your claims and are just operating on feminine emotion, lol

try again, brainlet, that's not what I meant.

Attached: bigstock-Door-To-The-Mind-50771078.jpg (900x675, 902K)

So now you reveal the true intentions behind your faux conservative rhetoric. Your overwhelming inferiority complex, not your dedication for a constructive discussion are what motivate your words. You're disgusting. Even paying attention to you is just a form of feeding into this gross and perverse exhibitionism of your inner frailty. Sorry bro this some weird shit you need to fix out on your own.

No. He was just from the South and all the women there are whores...

A salty straw man greentext is not an argument, bro. Try again when you're not dishonest or throwing ad hominems left and right.

lets hear your argument first? I'm merely trying in good faith to fill in the gaps that you left in your reasoning.

he was a misogynist alright. misogyn his wang all night long to you're mum.

Marriage is not disgusting. And I'm not even a white American male if that's what you're implying, I'm from Latin America. Imagine living in such a fucked up world that marriage is thought of as disgusting.

>people itt unironically defending marital infidelity regardless of the gender of the perpetrator
disgusting degenerates

He was clearly a realist.

>men don't actively take care of their children
lel

>fuck marriage
Unironically correct. It forces people into staying in unstable relationships, which is ultimately harmful to the child's mental health. Prior to the existence of marriage, children were raised by the community.

They do take care of them, just not as actively as a mother.

Animals with no male involvement have promiscuous females to try and secure diverse genes. Diverse genes increase the odds that at least one offspring will survive a bottleneck. Higher male involvement decreases the likelihood of extra pair copulations ( these still happen often).

>Because having 2 kids with Brandon, 1 with Tyrone, and 3 with Pedro
>Pedro
>i'm from Latin America
Mmmmhmmn

Just goes to show: if you aren't an incel you're having too much sex!

But the male feeds the female while she's taking care of the baby, therefore a more involved male increases his offsprings nourishment. Please feel free to graph "active" parental involvement however.

>comparing humans to beasts
>fuck overpopulation
We were supposed to rise above and use our intelligence.

We're in Yea Forums. I've been called that hundreds of times. Is it shocking? Does it offend you? Well, it shouldn't.

What the fuck are you talking about? Yes, humans are animals. I don't know why you are talking about overpopulation either, my post was explaining basic mating systems. Go ahead and do it better though.

It is completely rational, though. One vagina will only ever bear one child (usually - ignoring twins and so on) at a time while one penis can impregnate many vagina in succession.

Yes. This outlook is perfectly normal and understandable since men and women have different mating strategies in the first place.

>morality is base biology

Who are you quoting dude?

and irrational but okay

>Yes, humans are animals.
you might be an animal but most of humanity has moved on lol

Beast-like breeding techniques à la "let's buy 20 lottery tickets to see which one wins XDD" do not apply to modern humans. Look at the mortality-birth ratio. If we were to apply such things to the modern world we would be even more populated. Luckily we haven't done this nonsense. And yes humans are animals, biologically, but mentally they aren't beasts. Doing what you're proposing would be detrimental to the world.

Overpopulation fears are a meme.

Tell that to China.

I didn't propose anything. It was an explanation for different mating systems. But please explain how extra pair copulations would cause overpopulation.

Because in order to secure diverse genes like you said, the female would need to give birth to as many children as possible or at least more children than if she had a single mate.

But what do you mean by ‘beast’?

Some populations of animals in certain ecosystems do become overpopulated. Nature is not as wise and self-regulatory as we might tend to think.

What the fuck dude. That's a explanation to why it happens in nature. If I say, "sponges are basal animals with no true tissues" I am simply stating a fact. Similarly talking about mating systems is just that. I'm not telling anyone to do anything or to be a lobster.

Well, I only answered why would it lead to overpopulation in humans. You asked.

No. It is in fact the opposite of irrational as the idea is based upon said biological mating strategies.