>>17991803>i used to modelwas typed on a keyboard to a rain of incel tears, a hail of cheeto dust, a miasma of unwashed male
>i-i can get pussy! Obvious lie is obvious. Stating it is a sign of intent to deceive (but poor execution of the same)
>you're just low IQok pal... 177 tested. Did you administer me an IQ test? Did you attain a conclusion from a comment with (emphasis) a single neologism and an exclamation mark triply reduplicated for comedic emphasis? you don't know what you're talking about but that's a given for you across the board
>will fix womenwhat needs to be fixed?
>"fucks them up" (ghetto trash language) hormonallySo you're an endocrinologist? Hormonal contraception has been around forever and works with essentially no side effects. VTE was an issue with older generations but has been extinguished in contemporary ones.
>fix hook-up cultureSorry to burst your bubble but the idea of "hook up culture" as in "some present state of exorbitantly elevated sexual activity" is pseudoscientific and a myth. Sexuality has always existed, and young people have always tended to engage in sex. (People follow psychological drives? How surprising!)
>force people to stay together when pregnancy occursYou want to force people to remain in abusive relationships? What about overpopulation? This is a prevailingly bad idea.
>"conscience" (-10 word choice) about the consequences of sexWhy the obsession with "consequences"? This suggests internal repression and a slave morality worldview.
>fix... force... conscience... (sic.)Sloppily executed rhetorical device
>Women's pair-bonding mechanismsso you're now a psychologist? What would an incel even begin to know about "pair-bonding"?
>Destruction to nuclear familyWhat is the objectionable aspect of such a change? The nuclear family has been proven to be a repressive social structure. Do you not know anything about the social conflict framework?
Overall: 10/50 see me after class
